Ian Jackson wrote:

In Ofcom's ruling on the `Great Global Warming Swindle' [1], they say
amongst other things that (pdf page 20 onwards) (paraphrased):

The view promulgated by parts 1-4 of the programme, that climate
change is not man-made, was settled as a falsehood by the time the
programme was made. In their view, because the question was settled,
it wasn't a matter of controversy.

Many people argue that the effects of global warming are not
(completely) man-made, and there is no way of proving it either way.

That they declared that it was not man-made is the failing as I see/read
it, as well as mis-representing some of the contributors.
If they had said that it may not be man made, but a natural occurence,
then it would be quite OK to broadcast it.

This seems to lead to the absurd situation that an opinion which is
generally accepted as false is regarded by Ofcom as less
controversial, and more suitable for broadcasting in the form of an
allegedly factual polemic, as compared with an opinion on a subject
about which there are wide differences of opinion.

I am surprised that this has caused so much furore, as neither case can
be proven, the people who say it is a man made phenonenom(sp) have yet
to totally prove their case, as have the doubters who argue the climate
has been getting hotter for centuries.
That the planet has got hotter is not in doubt. What has caused it is.

Alan.
--
To reply by e-mail, change the ' + ' to 'plus'.